Since 1965, films have grown significantly in a few key ways. Technology has grown with the invention of colored film and CGI. Films have blown up on a global scale, reaching people everywhere instead of just in America. Movies have changed to show a more complex point of view in society, both nationally and globally.

While much has changed in film over the years, two major characteristics remain. The first is the unique style and execution that every movie has. Whether it be from the director’s vision, or the whole team’s, cinema has always been an artform of creative power. Through this expressiveness, room is made for social commentary. Historically, most films are made with a greater meaning behind them. There is often a reason to tell each specific story, and it relates to the current issues and events of life. Furthermore, movies have always been an outlet for creativity and social commentary, but they also change artistically to reflect the time period they are created in. 

While it works particularly well with social commentary, creativity can be utilized for many other purposes. Independent Cinema is very important as a platform for creativity which also gives opportunity to kick start careers and make money. Two quintessential movies for this concept include Quenten Tarantino’s “Reservoir Dogs”, and Steven Soderbergh’s “Sex, Lies, and Videotape”. The fact that both of these films take on social risks, and go against conventional norms shows how the creative opportunity that an independent film has can  be a gateway to success. 

“Sex, Lies, and Videotape” essentially is just one big atmosphere rather than a stereotypical film. Its whole purpose is to create a feeling rather than tell a story. The way that this film achieves its sense of atmosphere is through its realism. The film is mostly unconventional because it is made with sexual and graphic content, and it also brings forward a situation that is very realistic even today. Whether or not to include sexual themes within a film was a controversial topic around the time of the film’s release. While almost any film wouldn’t mind making profit, Soderbergh seems to care less about how many people he is entertaining, and more about the film he is making. This becomes apparent when taking a look at the film’s poster. The image is very minimalistic, and fits the dramatic, dark, and mysterious undertones of the movie itself. 

In a slightly different way, Tarantino uses his poster to create a captivating atmosphere for potential viewers to see. The poster looks exciting and cool, depicting the silhouettes of the men in suits. Yet, it is also similarly minimalistic in showing only the outlines of the group. Both filmmakers created this style of advertisement to appeal to curiosity by not showing very much.

While the poster is pleasing to the eye, the rest of “Reservoir Dogs” doesn’t have anything special in the looks department. What Tarantino lacks in visuals, he makes up for in writing. The technology used in this film was nothing out of the ordinary at the time, and the story was linear and predictable. The dialogue was where Reservoir Dogs shined. The witty, humorous and vulgar conversations of the band of criminals was what kept me as an audience member engaged. It made the film unpredictable, regardless of the simple plot. 

Overall, these two films rely on different elements to reach the same goal. If “Sex, Lies, and Videotape” didn’t have such a realistic story, the audience wouldn’t be so captivated. Without the witty and intellectual dialogue from Tarantino, Reservoir Dogs wouldn’t be anything special. Both of these independent movies used a specific aspect of film making to be unique, and that is how they found success in their time. 

Even though many unconventional films try to be different in order to be successful, There are often cases of films being unique just for the sake of originality, and not to become famous. Although being the highest grossing foreign film at the time of release, “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” is both conventional and unconventional. On one hand, it had very little political or controversial content and had an emphasis on appealing visuals rather than a unique plot. On the other hand, it is a foreign film, not intended to be groundbreakingly competitive with American movies. 

This still shows the sheer fictionality of the film, but does so in a way that is visually stunning and epic to the story. Not only is it one of my favorite shots of the whole movie, but it also supports the argument that “The best martial arts movies have nothing to do with fighting and everything to do with personal excellence” (Ebert). Does the scene realistically depict martial arts? No, they’re practically flying. Is it awesome? Absolutely! The beauty of the shot is in the personality of the film and the artistic choices made in spite of realistic combat. 

After watching the film and reading what others thought, I came to the conclusion that the film is simply meant to be entertaining and artistically unique rather than to “display the simultaneously localizing and globalizing tendencies of mass culture today”(“A Diasporic Reading” by Christina Klein). On the other hand, I agree with Roger Ebert’s point of view because the movie was exhilarating and excellent in my opinion. I do not think the film is meant to be politically, culturally or economically significant. The film only became historically and culturally significant because of its almost random success in the United States. Furthermore, This film is an example of how art can simply be art and not have significant economic desire or social commentary.

While some films take artistic risks to become unique, others do the same to “tackle social and political issues that are mostly tactile and audiences can relate to” (Nicola Evans). There is no finer example of this than the 1998 film “Pleasantville” directed by Gary Ross. 

Right from the start, the trailer shows siblings David (Maguire) and Jen (Witherspoon) arguing and then being thrown into the television world of Pleasantville. The way that the trailer is edited is one of the contributing factors to the film’s success. The specific scenes used along with the narration makes the film seem intriguing and mysterious. The viewer is left wondering how the two got caught up inside of a television more so than why the changes they make to the town are important. This is ultimately a big magic trick to get people to come see a movie that is nothing about what it seems.

This still is the perfect depiction of how the film contrasts color and black and white both visually and socially. In context, David has yet to turn into color just as the other kids who have grown or internally changed have. It also shows how visually unique and stunning the film is, showing that “the film was shot in color then the hues were drained out and replaced bit by bit”(CNN). This also shows how films use modern technology to change the way stories are told. 

This video clip is perhaps one of the most important in the entire film. It shows the mayor of Pleasantville in court with David and Bill as they debate the justification of the new anti-color laws. The mayor, Big Bob, abuses his supreme power and proves that “nothing creates fascists like the threat of freedom”(Ebert).

After watching the film and researching what critics had to say, I came to the stance that the film is meant to advocate for social justice more than entertain the masses and “[explore] the nostalgia for the wholesome 1950s and the dissatisfaction with the complexity of the hyperactive 90’s”(CNN). On the other hand, I do agree with the claim that the film “is so ambitious, so clever and so satisfying in so many ways,” both in how it tackles social issues and how it presents itself artistically (The Washington Post). Moreover, I think that the film is one of “the most meaningful and socially important films of our time,”  and clearly trying to press the issues of racism, sexism, hate speech, rape-culture, fascism, censorship, and freedom (Jared Yates). 

In a similar way to how “Pleasantville” indirectly speaks volumes about racism and its current problems, the 1967 film “Bonnie and Clyde” directed by Arthur Penn tackles its own social issues by showing “the heart of the deep economic crisis that hit the United States in 1930” as a parallel to the Vietnam War (Isuf Bytyci). The film caused revolutionary thinking, as it encouraged people to stand up for themselves, resist the draft, and live life the way they want to. It was time for change. Arthur Penn took advantage of the current state of the country, and realized it was a perfect time to rally people to fight for what they believed in.

Interestingly enough, the main protagonists are quite immoral in reality. If america didn’t feel the inevitability of the draft, “Bonnie and Clyde” wouldn’t have been the same film. Even though the film victimizes the barrow gang, they are still criminals who broke laws, robbed banks, and killed countless people. The film tested the boundaries for graphic content and created a connection between the characters and the viewers. The sheer brutality of the final scene, in which Bonnie and Clyde are repeatedly shot to death, is a powerfully disturbing metaphor for how soldiers were being butchered in Vietnam.

Both “Pleasantville” and “Bonnie and Clyde” have similar effects of social commentary, but it is important to note that the standards for what was socially acceptable in each time period was drastically different. The lens in which the audience looks through was more censored in 1967 because movies were mostly a form of entertainment. Tackling issues straightforward is always a risky move, because there is an almost certain chance that there will be backlash. This is why over the years films have slowly pushed the envelope further and further, to maintain viewers, but still be powerful in the process. 

While these films are drastically different at first glance, they all have strikingly similar aspects on a deeper level. A common theme across each of these films, save “Sex, Lies, and Videotape”, is violence. Showing violence in film alone is an example of how movies have changed over time, but the real importance of violence in these films is how it functions as a tool to display creativity and social commentary. Reservoir dogs uses violence in a way that keeps the viewer engaged and wanting to see more with guilty interest.

The brutal torture scene with Mr. Blonde, played by Michael Madsen, shows him beat a police officer and violently cut saw off his ear with a straight razor. Mr. Blonde seems to torture the captive cop for no apparent reason, other than his own amusement. This scene supports the claim that Tarantino’s “work was ultra violent,” and “that it was about nothing more than its own movieishness, with no connection to the real world” (The Newyorker). In other words, Tarantino used violence as a tool to make his film engaging. “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” uses violence to show artistic style and originality. “Pleasantville” displays violence in the form of ideals, showing how segregation, censorship, and hate speech are wrong. Finally, “Bonnie and Clyde” uses violence as a window into the horrors of the Vietnam war. Each of these films utilize violence as a way to communicate to the audience, and show that they are something more than the average movie. 

In the history of film, so much has changed. Not only has film changed over time, but what we as a society consider acceptable has changed drastically since 1965. The correlation between the two can be used as a tool to project how society might treat content in the future. Elements such as technology, genre, and style continuously grow to fit what is socially acceptable, but film will always be an artistic outlet for creativity and social commentary.